Tuesday, September 30, 2014

Executive Summary: Given the political reality, the KMT should announce that the STA has
been temporarily shelved. It can be left until negotiations over the
MTA have been concluded. The ruling and opposition parties can then
conduct negotiations. The DPP totally repudiated the KMT's Fiscal Policy
Act. It must change its attitude. The DPP must take concrete actions to
change its anti-business public image.

Full Text Below:

The pressure on President Ma must be enormous. A student hurled a book at him, hitting him. The Beijing authorities are again pressuring him to endorse one country, two systems. Former Minister of Economic Affairs Yin Chi-min recently published an article in the China Times, asking "Is anyone still willing to step forward and defend the Ma government?" In the dead of night, President Ma has to be feeling the pain.

Tsai Ing-wen is also having a hard time. She is clearly concerned about the DPP's public image. She wants to the DPP legislative caucus to establish an ad hoc group for fiscal affairs. She has proposed a fiscal bill to "enrich the nation and benefit the people." She hopes to reverse the party's anti-business image, as groundwork for a return to power in 2016.

Tsai Ing-wen has established short, medium, and long-term development strategies. In the short term the DPP will wrangle over fiscal policy matters in the Legislative Yuan. In the medium term the DPP will propose a Financial Industry Act and related policy proposals. In the long term, she will use the "Citizens Economic Conference" to propose a new model for economic development. She hopes this will enable the DPP to become a quasi-ruling party.

Tsai Ing-wen's declaration shines a spotlight on the DPP's Achilles Heel. The party is deeply distrusted by the business sector. Tsai Ing-wen is hoping to remedy this. The KMT has long enjoyed good relations with the business community. But during President Ma's second term, the government's direction on the petrochemical industry development, policy on energy , and particularly policy on nuclear power, as well as the minimum wage, have deeply alienated the business community.

Faced with current economic difficulties, both parties must offer something in the way of fiscal policy and legislation.

The DPP has long trumpeted its concern for the interests of labor, farmers, SMEs, and other disadvantaged segments of society. It has long evinced a socialistic flavor. During the 2012 presidential election, Tsai Ing-wen raised the banner of "fairness and justice." This underscored the DPP's solidarity with disadvantaged segments of society. But in a pluralistic society, championing fairness and justice, and attending to the interests of disadvantaged segments of society, are not necessarily the same as being "anti-business." The DPP is widely regarded as anti-business for two reasons. One. It lacks any robust arguments or proposals on fiscal policy. Two. It maintains to an "oppose anything having to do with [Mainland] China" closed door stance on cross-Strait economic and trade policy. During the Chen era it cavalierly halted construction on the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant. It flip-flopped repeatedly on construction of the Number Eight Naphtha Cracking Plant. It stubbornly blocked passage of ECFA (cross-Strait economic cooperation framework agreement). It even obstructed review of the recent STA (cross-Strait trade in services agreement) and FEPZ (special regulations for the free economic pilot zones). These reveal the degree to which the DPP ignores the voice of the business community. It was inevitable that it would be seen as anti-business.

By contrast, during the KMT's long rule on Taiwan, it has enjoyed close relations with the industrial and business sector, relations that the DPP cannot hope to match. Couple this with farsighted fiscal policy during its rule, including Yin Chung-jung, Li Kuo-ting, Chao Yao-tung in the early years, to Vincent Siew, Chiang Pin-kung and other fiscal experts during later years. All in an unbroken succession. It earned the business community's trust and affirmation. As a result the general public has the impression that the KMT is more adept than the DPP at promoting economic prosperity. But once President Ma was re-elected, he attempted to practice his own brand of "fairness and justice." With the worst possible timing, he introduced in rapid succession, the capital gains tax, gasoline price and electricity rate hikes, and other unpopular policies. This undermined trust between the government and the business sector. Add to this the impact of the Ma Wang rivalry and the Sunflower Student Movement. The Ma government's cross-Strait policy has been staunchly affirmed by the business community. But its inability to implement its policies due to Legislative Yuan obstruction has saddled it with an image of incompetence. This too, has deepened the alienation between the Ma government and the business community. The KMT's long-term advantages in fiscal policy have also been rapidly eroded.

Tsai Ing-wen is eager to reverse the DPP's anti-business image. She has proposed a "new model of economic development for Taiwan." She is attempting to change the DPP's image as a party inept at fiscal policy. Her "new model" includes three points. One. Economic growth is not limited to GDP. It must also factor in employment, wages, income distribution, regional balance, generational justice, quality of life, and environmental protection. Two. She hopes to change the "Taiwan takes the orders, then manufactures the product overseas" growth model. She hopes to transform the industrial structure. Three. The economic decision-making model should be "bottom-up" and require a social consensus.

The above rhetoric sounds oh so pretty. The direction is admittedly correct. But where are the specifics? Where is the road map? A policy without beef is no policy, merely a slogan. Her rhetoric provoked renewed criticism that Tsai was "water spinach" (a vegetable with hollow stems, hence one lacking substance). To escape criticism, she must present a clear and workable policy, along with a specific blueprint for public scrutiny.

The DPP may be able to change public perception. It must accelerate deliberation and offer a "new model of economic development for Taiwan" in the Legislative Yuan. This would definitely help the DPP change is anti-business image. Important fiscal policy bills have been stalled in the Legislative Yuan, unable to pass. Policy cannot be implemented. The KMT's image has been seriously undermined. The KMT must make compromises to breakthrough the legislative deadlock.

The "special regulations for the free economic pilot zones" are actually aimed at promoting industrial restructuring. It is consistent with the DPP's "new model" concept. The DPP should accelerate its proposed amendments to the law, and participate in advance consultations. The two major parties' legislative caucuses have undergone personnel changes. The "Cross-Strait Agreement Oversight Regulations" bill should be reviewed as soon as possible. As long as the ruling and opposition parties do not dig in their heels, a compromise should be possible. As for the controversies over STA (cross-Strait agreement on trade in services) and MTA (cross-Strait agreemento on trade in merchandise), the Mainland has explicitly rejected restarting negotiations. For the moment, all we can do is put the matter on hold. We can proceed later at the current pace. But the consultation process must be totally transparent. We must be in continuous communication with the relevant industries.

Given the political reality, the KMT should announce that the STA has been temporarily shelved. It can be left until negotiations over the MTA have been concluded. The ruling and opposition parties can then conduct negotiations. The DPP totally repudiated the KMT's Fiscal Policy Act. It must change its attitude. The DPP must take concrete actions to change its anti-business public image.

Monday, September 29, 2014

Summary: One can advocate national reunification. One can advocate Taiwan
independence. But everyone must understand that Taiwan is not Hong Kong.
Hong Kong's sovereignty was transferred by the British to the People's
Republic of China. Taiwan's sovereignty belongs to the Republic of
China. As such, the ROC's existence and development is a given. Taiwan
must respect itself. Only then can it win the respect of the other side.
Putting one's future in the hands of others is not the way. What Taiwan
needs is not independence, but self-reliance. It needs strength, not
arrogance. It needs to cooperate with the Mainland, on behalf of
national reunification, national rejuvenation, and the early realization
of the Chinese Dream. That is the correct option.

Full Text Below:

On the 26th of this month, CCP General Secretary Xi Jinping addressed a delegation of nearly 60 individuals from 24 Taiwan-based groups that support peaceful reunification. His mention of the term "one country, two systems" attracted considerable attention and a range of interpretations. In fact, his remarks were the result of long planning. Beijing had a definite agenda. According to media reports and on scene participants, Xi's remarks can be interpreted several ways. Some say that peaceful development is the process, peaceful reunification is the goal, and one country will be the final result. Xi's remarks had a deeper meaning. Some think Xi merely reiterated past policy. Perhaps this means that Beijing's position on certain matters will change. Some feel his remarks revealed weakness, and were disappointed.

Other governments and Taipei are concerned about the term "one country, two systems." In recent years, Beijing has come to realize that there is no market for one country, two systems on Taiwan. The term has been stigmatized. As a result, when referring to the one China framework, Beijng does not use the term one country, two systems as often as it did before. During the current legislative session, the DPP demanded that the Ma Ying-jeou government take a stand on the matter. Foreign reporters also probled for Xi's meaning. Some on Taiwan think Beijing is saber-rattling, as a warning to the DPP. Some say Beijing is tightening up its policy towards Taiwan. They say Xi's remarks are closely related to the current situation in Hong Kong. Some think the situation is serious, and that Beijing intends to propose a timetable for reunification. People hold a wide range of views. One meeting, different interpretations.

General Secretary Xi's remarks to visitors had both symbolic and substantive meanings.

First consider the symbolic meaning. The CCP probably knows that given the current political and social clmate on Taiwan, advocating reunification, national prosperity, and national strength, is out of favor, and even actively suppressed. Beijing has deliberately greeted these guests in a high profile manner. It is offering them encouragement and support. It is hoping that they will continue to be a mainstay. It hopes the public on Taiwan will cherish the spirit of patriotism, which currently hangs by a thread. It hopes to strengthen those advocating reunification on Taiwan, and change the way people think, contributing to early reunification. The CCP naturally supports groups that advocate reunification. But care must be taken in future implementation. Excessive intervention in Taiwan's internal affairs will probably not be required, and could be adverse and counterproductive.

Now consider the substantive meaning. Beijing expressed its position full with Xi's remarks. In the past it has referred to the two sides being one family, to peaceful development, and to peaceful reunification as its basic policy. Beijing is not about to give up on national reunification. It is convinced that national reunification is the final destination for Chinese people on both sides of the Strait, and is in the best interests of the public on Taiwan. The two sides can cooperate, and achieve the Chinese Dream sooner, rather than later. General Secretary Xi used the term one country, two systems. But he also said Beijing would consider political realities on Taiwan. It would consider views and suggestions from all sectors. As long as it can achieve national reunification, everything can be discussed. He even reaffirmed Beijing's position regarding the DPP. Past conduct does not matter. As long as the DPP comes to its senses, bygones will be bygones. These were all reiterations of past policies. Overall, Xi Jinping's remarks expressed goodwill, patience, and tolerance. The Mainland faces a multitude of domestic and international challenges. Beijing has no intention of making significant adjustments to cross-Strait policy in the short term.

Everyone on Taiwan, from top to bottom, considers one country, two systems unacceptable. Everyone knows why. In recent years, Beijing has made fewer references to one country, two systems. That does not mean that its basic position has changed. Xi's use of the term may have given people a start. But the Mainland's Taiwan policy remains within bounds. We have no cause to overreact. As far as the Republic of China is concerned, the pursuit of national reunification should not be a problem. The focus should be on the two sides' timing, manner, and preconditions for reunification. One country, two systems is far more relaxed than federalism. But in the face of the CCP's one country, two systems offensive, Taipei has three options. The best option for Taiwan and the rest of China, is to seek a more reasonable model for reunification. The next best option is to clarify the meaning of the term one country. It must be interpreted in a way more favorable to Taiwan. The worst option is to accept one country, two systems in part. This has not happened. If Taipei is eventually forced to accept one country, two systems as currently defined, that would not be reunification. That would be annihilation. Everyone in the ROC, from top to bottom, considers that totally unacceptable.

One can advocate national reunification. One can advocate Taiwan independence. But everyone must understand that Taiwan is not Hong Kong. Hong Kong's sovereignty was transferred by the British to the People's Republic of China. Taiwan's sovereignty belongs to the Republic of China. As such, the ROC's existence and development is a given. Taiwan must respect itself. Only then can it win the respect of the other side. Putting one's future in the hands of others is not the way. What Taiwan needs is not independence, but self-reliance. It needs strength, not arrogance. It needs to cooperate with the Mainland, on behalf of national reunification, national rejuvenation, and the early realization of the Chinese Dream. That is the correct option.

Summary: Sun Yat-sen once related a story about a longshoreman who kept a
lottery ticket in his carrying pole. Ecstatic that he had won the
lottery, he flung his pole into the sea. When working toward a goal, one
must never let one's imagination run amok. One must never forget one's
roots. Think about it. If in order to punish Chang Guann, we sacrifice
the rule of law, we may win the lottery, but we would have thrown away
the pole.

Full Text Below:

The Executive Yuan recently approved a draft amendment to the Food Safety and Health Administration Law. It increased the fines tenfold for food companies that counterfeit foodstuffs. It also increased the criminal penalties for unscrupulous operators. Profiteers blindly pursuing profit at the expense of consumer safety, should be heavily penalized. But the laws have been amended six times in seven years. We are now in the embarrassing situation of amending the law for the seventh time. Leave aside the question of what these government agencies have in mind. Has focusing exclusively on heavy penalties after the fact resulted in neglecting preventive measures?

Worse still, under intense public pressure, certain individuals and government agencies, such as the Ministry of Health and Welfare, have proposed making the laws retroactive. They hope to impose heavy penalties on the Chang Guann Company, which was responsible for the rancid oil scandal. If this happens, it would set a national precedent for ex post facto law. Chang Guann may be heavily fined. But doing so would establish a negative precedent that destroys the rule of law.

Penalties must not be retroactive. That is a fundamental principle of democracy and the rule of law. The reason is obvious. How can the government formulate new laws that punish people for past conduct? For example, using asbestos, or using methyl chloride as a refrigerant in refrigerators. Scientific studies later showed that asbestos and methyl chloride are carcinogenic or pathogenic substances. Future use must of course be prohibited. But passing ex post facto laws to punish manufacturers who produced these products before they were made illegal, turns people into criminals against their will. The result can only be economic and social chaos. We would be no different from an authoritarian regime.

The Executive Yuan draft amendment to the Food Safety Law has three key points. One. It increases administrative fines tenfold for unscrupulous vendors. The maximum fine would be 200 million NT. Two. It increases sentences for manufacturers who defraud the public to seven years in prison. Fines would also be increased tenfold. Three. It abolishes industry regulations for court imposed fines. It plugs legal loopholes from the Chang Chi Foodstuff fake oil scandal. It imposes administrative fines of 1.85 billion NT. The court imposed fines of 38 million NT. The principle of double indemnity and provisions for priority penalties resulted in a paltry 38 million NT fine. This loophole has been plugged by provisions for the Chang Chi Foodstuff fake oil scandal.

In short, according to the rule of law, criminal penalties may not be retroactive. This is essential to ensure public trust in the justice system. Whether the issue is increased fines or longer sentences for manufacturers, ex post facto laws are unacceptable. Justice Minister Luo Yingxue notes that ex post facto law punishments amount to ex post facto subversions of democracy. This may not please the public. But it is the truth. It is something political appointees must uphold.

Take the Executive Yuan draft law. Only one provision pertains to the Chang Guann scandal, the provisions for the Chang Chi Foodstuff fake oil scandal. The Kaohsiung City Government has fined Chang Guann 50 million NT. Future ill-gotten gains may also lead to hundreds of millions in fines. According to current food safety laws, once Chang Guann pays the court imposed fines, it can avoid administrative penalties. The new law would abolish the court imposed corporate fines, as long as the legislature amends the law before the court imposes its sentence. Chang Guann could not escape administrative penalties by paying the court imposed fines.

The Food Safety draft law plugs past legal loopholes. It restores some measure of justice. But strictly speaking, the blind pursuit of heavier sentences without considering how the law would apply in practice, often leads to new problems when the law is found to be inadequate. It also reflects carelessness and haste by the executive and legislative branches. These result in broad brush laws that fail to discriminate.

In recent years, all sorts of food safety problems have arisen. Government policies often focus exclusively on increased penalties. This shows that government agencies are already at their wits end. Food safety management cannot rely only on the food companies' conscience. It must be rooted in a transparent and effective system of oversight. If the government system is circumspect and reliable, food companies will have little opportunity for deceit. Current health and welfare agencies rely on piecemeal, stop-gap measures. They do not know how to establish sound mechanisms that address the problem at its source. The result is seven amendments to the Food Safety Act in seven years, and Draconian punishments that still have not solved the problem. The crux of the problem is systemtic inadequacies.

When Shang Yang amended the laws, he first established credibility by keeping his word. The government must win first the public trust. More importantly, the authorities must fulfill their commitments. In the final analysis, the system is ill-conceived. Oversight is lacking at the front, and punishment is not swift enough at the back. These are the root cause of endless food safety problems. Fines may be increased and sentences may be lengthened. But as long as operators divest themselves of their holdings, lawsuits may drag on for years without resolution.

Under the circumstances, arguments that "new laws should be retroactive" may pander to the desire to punish profiteers. But opportunistic pandering to mob sentiment is not how a responsible democratic government should behave. Fortunately the Ministry of Justice has insisted that the law be non-retroactive. The Executive Yuan's final draft did not violate the principle of double indemnity. It did not turn the clock back on the rule of law.

Sun Yat-sen once related a story about a longshoreman who kept a lottery ticket in his carrying pole. Ecstatic that he had won the lottery, he flung his pole into the sea. When working toward a goal, one must never let one's imagination run amok. One must never forget one's roots. Think about it. If in order to punish Chang Guann, we sacrifice the rule of law, we may win the lottery, but we would have thrown away the pole.

Thursday, September 25, 2014

Summary: Scotland and Hong Kong have shown that cross-Strait problems are more
complex, both conceptually and methodologically. The Republic of China
is undoubtedly a common asset for both sides. Therefore Beijing must not
cling to the notion of destroying the Republic of China. If a Ma Xi
Meeting can be held, the two sides can avoid at least two decades of
suffering. Without a Ma Xi Meeting, Beijing might destroy the Republic
of China amidst a Pyrrhic victory. Does Beijing possess the wisdom and
compassion? Does it realize that if it passes up the opportunity to hold
a Ma Xi Meeting, any future regret will be too late?

Full Text Below:

The hope that Beijing would use the APEC Meeting in November to arrange a Ma Xi Meeting has been shattered. But champions of the meeting have not given up trying. If Beijing passes up the opportunity to hold a Ma Xi Meeting, any future regret will be too late.

As the saying goes, "Follow the mandate of heaven and comply with the will of the people." An historical trend is the mandate of heaven. Public opinion is the will of the people. Any solution to cross-Straits problems requires following the mandate of heaven and complying with the will of the people. It must not defy the mandate of heaven and ignore the will of the people. The Ma Xi Meeting can be a meeting of "heaven and man," as well as a meeting of "history and public opinion." Pass up this rare opportunity, and another one may never come along.

Any solution to cross-Strait problems must go with the flow of history. Modern and contemporary history has witnessed two waves of national self-determination. The first wave began at the end of World War II, in 1945. It was primarily motivated by calls for national self-determination. The second wave began with the fall of the Berlin Wall, in 1989, and in 1991, when the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact imploded. It was motivated primarily by the desire to overthrow a Communist dictatorship and establish political self-determination. Cross-Strait issues cannot be resolved by means of a "Taiwan independence referendum." But neither is it possible to stifle some form of "reunification referendum." This can be regarded as a form of "self-determination." This is a cross-Strait historical trend. This is a watershed for human civilization, democracy, and human rights that cannot be avoided.

Leave aside for the moment international opinion on the Scottish independence referendum. It was undoubtedly a positive example for human civilization, political rights, and democratic rule. By the same token, any solution for cross-Strait problems must also adhere to the requirements of human civilization. They must not lead to a tragedy for history, civilization, and democracy.

Furthermore, the solution to cross-Strait problems must comply with public opinion. Take the situation in Hong Kong for example. The political system is at odds with its value system. This is not something that rhetorical attacks, military intimidation, or financial inducements can reconcile. This is especially true when public opinion merges with historical trends. Defying the mandate of heaven and ignoring the will of the people will only make the situation harder to resolve. Public opinion in Hong Kong is "merely" fighting for genuine universal suffrage. Yet the wrangling has already led to an impasse. How would Beijing deal with public opinion on Taiwan during the upcoming sixth presidential election for the Republic of China?

Can the two sides find a solution? Will they remain deadlocked over the existence of the Republic of China? Is an APEC Ma Xi Meeting possible? Is the meeting also stuck on the Republic of China? What solution to cross-Strait problems does Beijing seek, in its heart of hearts? Does it want a one China erected on the grave of the Republic of China? Such a solution would be a catastrophe and tragedy for history, civilization, democracy, and human rights. This refusal to recognize the Republic of China, this determination to destroy the Republic of China, makes Beijing hesitant to support an APEC Ma Xi Meeting. Beijing is afraid to lend credence to the "Two States Theory," by acknowledging the existence of both the ROC and . the PRC. Can Beijing free its thinking and embrace realism, as Deng Xiaoping urged and Beijing recently reaffirmed? Can it embrace a one China solution that preserves the Republic of China? Such a solution would follow the mandate of heaven and comply with the will of the people. Under such a "big roof concept of China," both the Republic of China and the People's Republic of China would be part of China. Why couldn't such a vision be realized at an APEC Ma Xi Meeting?

Beijing hopes to use the Republic of China to guard against Taiwan independence. Yet it refuses to admit that the Republic of China is part of China. It merely affirms that both the Mainland and Taiwan are part of one China. This encourages relentless attempts at "backdoor listing" on Taiwan. This has become the main reason the public on Taiwan finds it difficult to identify with "one China," and to refer to themselves as Chinese. The UDN News has advocated the "water glass theory." Taiwan is the water, the ROC is the glass. As long as the glass remains intact, the water in the glass will remain in place. Once the glass is shattered, the water will spill out everywhere. This theory remains true under "one China, different interpretations" or the "big roof concept of China." Therefore any cross-Strait solution should preserve the ROC as part of one China.

Can Beijing shift its thinking from destroying the Republic of China in order to ensure one China, to preserving the Republic of China to ensure one China? Must it back away from an APEC Ma Xi Meeting? If such a meeting can take place, couldn't authorities on both sides refer to the APEC Ma Xi Meeting as a "test case?" Ma Ying-jeou could attend the meeting as a "Chinese Taipei Economic Leader" and "leader of Taiwan." Sundry ceremonies and activities could be negotiated and planned by both sides. This flexible international/domestic context could give "one China" new meaning. Cross-Strait relations could benefit from new thinking and be given a new vitality. This could even establish a new model for political conflict resolution. A Ma Xi Meeting would not be just another meeting. It would affect how civilized society thinks.

Beijing's mistake is to see an APEC Ma Xi Meeting as a stage on which Taiwan might enact some sort of political theater. It has missed the greater importance of this meeting to the ruling government and political opposition on the Mainland. This meeting could free up Beijing's thinking and enable it to embrace realism. It could be an opportunity for the two sides to think anew. It is possible that Beijing realizes this is a golden opportunity, but lacks leaders of sufficient wisdom, strength, and compassion to make new choices and extricate the two sides from their never-ending struggle.

Scotland and Hong Kong have shown that cross-Strait problems are more complex, both conceptually and methodologically. The Republic of China is undoubtedly a common asset for both sides. Therefore Beijing must not cling to the notion of destroying the Republic of China. If a Ma Xi Meeting can be held, the two sides can avoid at least two decades of suffering. Without a Ma Xi Meeting, Beijing might destroy the Republic of China amidst a Pyrrhic victory. Does Beijing possess the wisdom and compassion? Does it realize that if it passes up the opportunity to hold a Ma Xi Meeting, any future regret will be too late?

Wednesday, September 24, 2014

Summary: Lethal sloppiness syndrome can be overcome in two ways. One. Throw
the doors of the marketplace open to competition. Two. Revamp the system
and its oversight mechanisms to prevent malfeasance. Reject
liberalization and one will not be able to improve oversight and
oversight capabilities. Carelessness and haste will be unavoidable.
Society will be forced to endure such scandals over and over again.

Full Text Below:

On the 23rd, this newspaper published an editorial entitled, "Lethal Sloppiness: One Reason Taiwan Has Not Progressed." Private companies and government agencies have recently committed a string of sloppy and perfunctory blunders. Many readers and netizens became concerned. Some feel a deeper exploration of the causes are required. Others cite TSMC and other technology industries as counterexamples. They think many industries on Taiwan lead the world in precision and efficiency. Clearly the label of "lethal sloppiness" cannot be applied to everyone. Today's editorial elaborates on this.

As one reader said, lethal sloppiness is a label that cannot be applied to everyone. In the technology industry, Taiwan companies' precision and efficiency have made the world sit up and take notice. In this highly competitive field, any slackness leads to one's elimination. Actually, in the traditional food industry, I-Mei also pursues perfection. It does not overlook a single detail. It is not the least bit afraid that the rancid oil scandal will bring it down. Lethal sloppiness also infects government agencies. They complete their assignments in slapdash fashion. They shine the public on with bureaucratese. Only in rare instances do dedicated individuals toil away with due diligence.

Generally speaking, private companies or government agencies guilty of lethal sloppiness exhibit certain traits. One. They operate in a relatively closed environment. They lack obvious competition. Therefore they lack internal incentives. They can perform low quality work and skate by. Two. They are part of more traditional structures. They embody old business models or obey old power structures. Their operations are not dependent upon new knowledge or skills. They can get by with clever tricks or by playing a waiting game. Three. Their leaders' commands are unclear or the leaders have ulterior motives. Lacking a clear mandate, subordinates find themselves at sea. So they go through the motions and ignore content and quality.

Compare the above with the private companies and government agencies implicated during the recent scandals. With the exception of LCY Chemical Corp., such carelessness and sloppiness is not hard to find. The vast majority of sloppy businesses are domestic market oriented. They hide behind lower domestic standards and more lenient oversight. This enables them to skate by. Think about it. What nation's gas industry uses smell alone to determine whether gas is leaking? What kind of food industry watches as underground factories produce rancid oil that stinks to high heaven, yet like the Chang Guan Company, has no qualms about purchasing barrel after barrel as raw material?

Domestic or export is of course not the sole criterion for corporate quality or performance. But in practice, the export industry must accept downstream manufacturer quality control. It must also meet export nation administrative standards. As a result, manufacturers must strive to meet these standards. Only then can they ensure product quality. By contrast, the purely domestic market-oriented industries often face inspection standards lower than those mandated internationally. Intentionally or otherwise, this, coupled with government agency leniency, product or service quality inevitably tends to decline.

Over the past twenty years on Taiwan, the information and communications industries have thrived. Why? Because this sector continues to pursue precision and progress. A steady stream of global technology companies come here to develop new technologies and parts manufacture. Every day engineers from Taiwan fly all over the world, solving technical problems for their customers. In other words, when businesses look to the world stage, they become accustomed to higher standards and more willing to accept them. By doing so, they make themselves more powerful and more irreplaceable. This sector of Taiwan's economy has become a global pioneer. Most companies however, are still spinning their wheels. Many industries are no different than they were 20 or 30 years ago. They have become a slack and backward industry sector.

Take the service industry for example. Most businesses are domestic market oriented. Services have long been a relatively backward and inefficient sector on Taiwan. The sizeable financial industry is no different. Service sector output accounted for 70% of our gross domestic product. It employs almost 60% of the workforce. But insufficient innovation and scale limits it to low-wage, unskilled labor. This is why Taiwan's economic development has been weak in recent years . This is why young people remain trapped in low-wage jobs. Improving the quality and efficiency of the service sector, requires opening up one's markets to competition. Doing so enables the influx of up to date business philosophies, and stimulates industry development. Unfortunately in recent years, many people have demanded protectionism. This includes the Sunflower Student Movement, with its anti-globalization demands. Such demand have even stalled the STA. Opponents of the STA are prescribing the wrong medicine for what ails them.

In fact, the same yardstick can be applied to politics. Politics is a domestic market oriented industry. It is a closed industry sector that lacks competition. It too has become a stagnant sector. Taiwan may have blue vs. green competition. But in recent years neither the KMT nor the DPP have offered a new vision for the nation's future. The two parties merely sabotage each other, or attempt to settle old scores. Voters can effect ruling party changes through the electoral process. But Taiwan's democracy no longer has the ability to solve problems, never mind enhancing the effectiveness of the executive branch. The rancid oil scandal showed that local and central governments are clueless. That much is all too clear.

Lethal sloppiness syndrome can be overcome in two ways. One. Throw the doors of the marketplace open to competition. Two. Revamp the system and its oversight mechanisms to prevent malfeasance. Reject liberalization and one will not be able to improve oversight and oversight capabilities. Carelessness and haste will be unavoidable. Society will be forced to endure such scandals over and over again.

Tuesday, September 23, 2014

Summary: Two rancid oil scandals have erupted. Consumers have had enough. The
only way to prevent rancid oil scandals is proper management. Recycling
mechanisms must be established on the basis of profit and loss. The
Ministry of Health and Welfare must co-ordinate its administration and
auditing, If it can impose fines, revoke licenses, and other
administrative sanctions, it can address the problem at its source.

Full Text below:

The rancid oil scandal has undermined Taiwan's reputation as a gourmet's paradise. The Executive Yuan has investigated and dealt with the scandal for nearly one month. The only action it has taken is to propose that night market stalls sign contracts with the "little bees" that recycle waste oil, and express hope that the Legislative Yuan will amend the Food Safety and Health Management Act and impose harsher criminal penalties, Apparently it is attempting to mollify populist sentiment by increasing criminal penalties. Apparently it hopes to divert attention from the government's responsibility. But if society considers the matter rationally, it will mot accept this approach.

This is not the first time a rancid oil scandal has erupted on Taiwan. On the eve of the Mid-Autumn Festival in 1985, the De Tai Oil Company acquired rancid oil at low cost from pig farmers, which they then turned into low grade vegetable oil. They mixed it with salad oil, and presto, lawful oil. This was sold to restaurants in the greater Taipei area. Thirty years later, food safety regulations have been totally revamped. Administrative and criminal penalties have been substantially increased. Yet a rancid oil scandal has erupted, yet again. The government should hang its head in ashamed.

A fair and impartial investigation of responsibility in the current food safety scandal is essential. The first line of defense was the Pingtung County Government. Yet it cavalierly igored the public welfare. The Ministry of Health and Welfare is responsible for food safety. The EPA is responsible for waste recycling. The COA is responsible for the management of feed oil. The Ministry of Economic Affairs is responsible for the inspection of registered companies and factories. All of them were indolent and derelict in their duty.

The root of the problem is slack management. Nobody wants to be responsible. After the recent outbreak, the Ministry of Health and Welfare attempted to set the tone by issuing a green light for food safety. It even dug up an expert willing to endorse its findings. "Ingesting one or two drops will do no immediate harm to the human body." Taiwan is no longer a society that seeks only a full belly and warm clothing. Food safety and health are a basic right. They can even be considered a national security issue.

Slack management can be divided into two categories. One. Recycling and environmental protection. Every rancid oil scandal over the past 30 years has been rooted in blind greed. Earlier this year, many pigs came down with diarrhea. The number of pigs plummeted. The price of lard rose. Illegal underground oil refiner Kuo Lien-cheng obtained large quantities of waste cooking oil from "little bees," then turned it into low grade lard which he sold for a huge profit.

The government has the necessary mechanisms to prevent such crimes. The Ministry of Economic Affairs is vigorously recycling waste cooking oil into biodiesel. But when oil prices stabilized, biodiesel policy became stalled. Large quantites of recycled waste cooking oil had nowhere to go. With profits to be made, they returned to the dining table, and into consumers' bellies.

The US, Japan, the European countries, and other advanced countries, have also endured waste cooking oil scandals. Painful lessons led to effective management models. Waste cooking oil recycling, processing, production, and marketing all have clear legal norms. Contrast this with Taiwan, where every night "little bees" collect waste cooking oil from night market stalls.

The EPA adopted Europe and US specifications in toto. It required snack bars and night market stalls to sign contracts with "little bees," entrusting them to recycle waste oil. The assumption was that county and municipal environmental protection bureaus would rigorously and control the process. Recycling by anyone other than a lawfully appointed vendor, cleaning company, or moving company, meant penalties. These were truly pie in the sky policies dreamed up by bureaucrats sitting in air-conditioned offices.

The so-called "little bees" are self-employed individuals dedicated to the illegal acquisition of waste cooking oil from night market stalls, vendors, and snack bars. They are like honey bees gathering pollen. An 18 liter bucket of waste oil can be legitimately recycled to make biodiesel. It can sell for 200 to 300 NT. The little bees purchase price is usually 100 to 200 NT per barrel.

Fleece can come only from sheep. The little bees' waste oil recycled at higher cost, is naturally sold to underground oil refiners and turned into higher-priced lard. Little bees operate on the fringes of the law. They are in business to make money, not lose it. If little bees could be persuaded to remain within the law, they would already be legitimate waste disposal companies, Why would they remain little bees? Can the government really control little bees, who flit from here to there?

In Japan all oil recovery is done by professional companies, then sold to the government at higher prices. The government commissions refiners to turn it into fuel for garbage trucks. Buying at higher prices makes it impossible for little bees to survive In Japan. Karl Marx said it best. "If capital can get a 100 percent profit, it will trample on all human laws; 300 percent, and there is not a crime at which it will scruple, nor a risk it will not run." The EPA should reflect on the system for the disposal of batteries and the recycling of light bulbs, which have been around for years. On what basis can it gradually establish a sound system? The key is people are even willing to commit capital crimes for a profit. But no one is willing to engage in a money losing business.

The Ministry of Health and Welfare has been indolent and derelict in its duty. This has led to resource management blind spots. Its sole response to the scandal has been to urge the amending of the law and an increase in penalties. The underground rancid oil refining business is surely hateful. But food safety violations cannot be compared to the brutal murders on the Taipei MRT. To do so would violate the principles of democracy and the rule of law. It would merely underscore the incompetence of civil servants.

Consider the actions taken by government agencies during the recent food safety scandal. The COA finally imposed strict oversight of foreign oil imports and the registration of domestic manufacturing, The Ministry of Economic Affairs intends to assist cities and counties inspect all 202 companies with temporary factory registration for feed oil and edible oil processing. These moves were long overdue. They must continue to perform these duties. After the scandal erupted, the Ministry of Health and Welfare required county and city health bureaus to inspect products and remove them from store shelves. It passed the buck onto the manufacturer. It never implemented any preventive mechanisms. When condemnation from all walks of life reached new highs, it pandered to populist sentiment by calling for increased penalties. It never considered the pursuit of the public welfare. Compared to the judicial and legislative branches, it is clear that it must become more proactive and involved with the community, the economy, and other aspects of people's lives.

Two rancid oil scandals have erupted. Consumers have had enough. The only way to prevent rancid oil scandals is proper management. Recycling mechanisms must be established on the basis of profit and loss. The Ministry of Health and Welfare must co-ordinate its administration and auditing, If it can impose fines, revoke licenses, and other administrative sanctions, it can address the problem at its source.

Monday, September 22, 2014

Summary: Hasty, careless, imprecise, non-standardized approaches to doing things are fatal for any society that hopes to progress. As long as this
sort of "good enough for government work" mindset prevails, the rule of
law will remain difficult to implement, and progress will be impossible.
The rancid oil scandal was a repeat performance. It abruptly took
Taiwan back 30 years, to the "knock-off kingdom" era. Taiwan society has
discovered that many officials and citizens are still living in the
past. They are puffed up with haughty complacency They boast that they
live in an advanced nation. Astounding, no? This Taiwan disease has no
political coloration. So who among the ruling and opposition parties has
a remedy?

Full Text Below:

Taiwan's economic growth has slowed. Blue vs. green political opposition persists, undiminished. The economy is being strangled and politics provoke disgust. These are two barriers to the nation's progress. Yet recent events prove that private enterprise and government agencies lack seriousness. This is in fact a serious problem that prevents Taiwan society from moving forward.

Let us begin with something people feel strongly about. The Taoyuan landscape art festival exhibited a large "moon rabbit." When workers dismantled it with the conclusion of the Mid-Autumn Festival, Sparks from an overheated truck engine caused a fire. The grassy field and the moon rabbit were consumed by flames. The moon rabbit was a work by the Dutch artist Florentijn Hofman. His previous work, a yellow duckling, was exhibited in Taoyuan last year. But a power failure caused it to deflate. This was followed by overinflation which caused it to burst. When exhibited in Keelung, air pollution turned it into a "black duckling." This was followed by the improper use of cleaning agents, which weakened the rubber seams and caused it to explode. Hofman is unlikely to forget the ordeal his pieces have undergone while on Taiwan.

The yellow duckling exploded, twice, due to sloppiness on the part of those in charge and staff members. They failed to anticipate external variables. Could power failures and air pollution really not have been anticipated? Taiwan companies were granted the opportunity to participate in the manufacture of of the yellow duckling. They beamed with pride. But when sewing such a large piece, did they bother to take into account the strength of the seams? When they cleaned the duckling, did it never occurred to them that this might weaken the stitching at the seams? This is typical of the "stop-gap measure" mindset. Even more absurdly, when dismantling the moon rabbit, contractors touched off a conflagration. The county government and exhibitors then had the chutzpah to claim that "They were scheduled for demolition anyway." Apparently no one is to be held to account for this careless accident. Apparently it did not matter that a work of art was destroyed in such a farcical manner.

Coincidentally, the day before the Taoyuan moon rabbit became a "Burning Rabbit," a gas explosion rocked the Kaohsiung MRT project. This was the same place where two months ago a ruptured petrochemical pipe led to a benzene gas leak. This time on site personnel clearly smelled the odor of gas. Yet construction units required workers to wear gas masks and re-enter the tunnel to work, promptly triggering a gas explosion. Thirty-two people died in the Kaohsiung gas explosion. People were just recovering from the disaster. Yet the Kaohsiung MRT resumed work in such a slapdash manner. Did anyone learn a lesson from the experience? This city bills itself as a "human rights city." But does it place any value on the lives of its construction workers?

The Taoyuan and Kaohsiung city governments can of course lay all the blame on contractor neglect. But these works involve construction specifications, working conditions, as well as public safety. The government must require manufacturers to comply with contract specifications and supervise construction. If it allows them to compromise standards, if it abets shoddy construction methods or substandard materials, how can the public feel safe? How can Taiwan ensure product quality?

Following the Kaohsiung MRT gas explosion, construction units installed a large number of fans. They attempted to disperse the gas from the site by blowing air. Firefighters attempted dilute the benzene by spraying it with water. But as everyone knows, benzene is insoluble in water. We can now see just how primitive public safety is in the modern city of Kaohsiung. Information Technology long ago entered the cloud computing era. Yet the Kaohsiung City Government could not produce a complete and accurate map of its petrochemical pipelines and underground drainage culverts. Clearly Taiwan, a purported "IT Giant," is still quite a few evolutionary steps behind the times. More than 50 days later, the bodies of two firefighters were finally recovered. In fact, the "phantom" box culvert outlet was not that far away. Apparently the Kaohsiung City Government never bothered to conduct a serious and systematic search. They later trotted out some tale of "phantom" culverts to evade blame. This is truly a mark of shame for modern Taiwan.

The rancid oil scandal has shown us that the problem is callous indifference on the part of private enterprise and government agencies alike. It is one thing for Kuo Lie-cheng to process rancid oil in his underground processing plants. But when the Chang Guann Company, capitalized in the hundreds of millions, purchases oil from him, that is something else altogether. Chang Guann mixed this oil in with others and sold it to food manufacturers across the nation. How many complaints has the Pingtung County Government been barraged with over the past four years? Environmental protection, health, and agriculture officials politely went through the motions, turning a blind eye to what was going on, again and again. Human lives were at stake. Yet bureaucrats thought nothing of it. And county residents apparently still have complete faith in such a county governmenty.

These are all examples of hasty, careless, imprecise, non-standardized approaches to doing things. They are fatal for any society that hopes to progress. As long as this sort of "good enough for government work" mindset prevails, the rule of law will remain difficult to implement, and progress will be impossible. The rancid oil scandal was a repeat performance. It abruptly took Taiwan back 30 years, to the "knock-off kingdom" era. Back then Taiwan lacked resources and knowledge. Chasing after appearances was enough. But 30 years later, after so much progress, Taiwan society has discovered that many officials and citizens are still living in the past. They are puffed up with haughty complacency They boast that they live in an advanced nation. Astounding, no? This Taiwan disease has no political coloration. So who among the ruling and opposition parties has a remedy?

Sunday, September 21, 2014

Summary: The Scottish independence referendum made people realize that
Scotland was part of the United Kingdom. If the two sides of the Taiwan
Strait wish to resolve the issue of reunification vs. independence, they
must first allow the ROC to perceive itself as part of China, under a
"big roof concept of China." This is a matter of hearts and minds, This
is fundamental problem that transcends the issue of reunification vs.
independence referenda.

Full Text Below;

The referendum on Scottish independence has presented the world with at least three major political revelations.

One. Britain is an advanced democracy. That is why the referendum process was so peaceful. It dealt skillfully with the sensitive issue of whether the nation should be divided. It represented a major achievement for democracy and human rights. Two. The no and yes camps were evenly matched. No matter which side won, the other side would lose. Would the referendum solve the problems the nation faced? Or would it merely deepen the nation's wounds? England and Scotland are both wounded, and Scotland is wounded within. This illustrates the limitations of reunification vs. independence referenda. Three. The referendum has forced the world to consider why a nation should remain either unified or be divided.

This year, two kinds of referenda have attracted global attention. The first was the Crimean referendum. The second was the Scottish referendum. The Crimean referendum dates back to March 1991, when the Soviet Union imploded. At that time, Ukraine and 15 republics passed referenda calling for independence from the Soviet Union. Now however, Crimea has approved a referendum to secede from Ukraine and join Russia. The Soviet Union imploded as a result of the communist dictatorship's political and economic incompetence. But the Crimean referendum reflects post-Soviet Russian factors, international power struggles, violence, and military intervention.

Britain was once an empire over which the sun never set. The United States won independence only after fighting a war with the mother country. Fifty-three nations of the British Commonwealth have become independent from the British Empire. But Scotland is not like them. King James I and King James VI of Scotland were the very same person. Today Queen Elizabeth II's mother is a Scotswoman. Scotland, England, and Wales are all part of the British Isles. The United Kingdom has a highly positive international image and status. The British Isles have no violent political or ideological disagreements. So why must Scotland demand independence? No wonder the previous Conservative government never expected independence to become an issue, one that would force British Prime Minister David Cameron to say that if Scotland became independent, it would amount to a "divorce." So why must Scotland be independent? Observers think the key is North Sea oil interests. They may well trump Scotland's membership in the United Kingdom.

As the Crimean and Scottish examples show, political unity vs. political independence often involve the collision of political and economic systems and their values. This was the case when the Soviet Union imploded. Independence sometimes involves national identity issues. This was the case for Crimea. It sometimes involves economic interests and greed. This was the case for North Sea oil and Scottish independence. One can achieve independence in many ways. One can rise up like the United States and fight a War of Independence. One can hold a public referendum like Quebec did with Canada, or Scotland did with Great Britain. The Spanish government by contrast, has no intention of recognizing Catalonia's independence referendum. Therefore the Scottish independence referendum has relatively narrow appeal. The belief is that oil interests dominate. But the government and the public displayed respect for democracy and civilized behavior during the process.

The Scottish independence referendum has had a powerful impact on cross-Strait thought. The gist of it is that cross-Strait relations are unlike relations between Scotland and the UK. This is correct, but incomplete. Scottish independence is not motivated by differences over political and economic systems or national identiy. It is motivated by dissatisfaction with social and economic policy. The pro-independence faction has even implied that following independence they would be willing to remain part of the British Commonwealth. Cross-Strait relations by contrast, are marked by vastly different political systems, values, beliefs, and lifestyles. On the economic side, Scotland wants to exclude the United Kingdom from the North Sea oil fields. Taiwan of course has no oil. It is also increasingly dependent on the Mainland economy. Today cross-Strait relations are based on economic benefit, but differences in political systems pose a bottleneck.

The biggest difference is that London is willing to abide by the outcome of a Scottish referendum. Beijing on the other hand, has consistently opposed any independence referendum. Even the United States has said that the United Kingdom and Scotland should remain unified. The United States would not want the two sides reunified on an unequal basis. But it has already stated its opposition to any Taiwan independence referendum. Given the international framework and cross-Strait situation, the two sides find themselves within a "no reunification, no Taiwan independence, no use of force" situation.

For 300 years Scotland has been part of the United Kingdom. Yet today it seeks independence from the United Kingdom. Beijing on the other hand, still does not recognize the Republic of China as part of China. It only recognizes Taiwan and the Mainland as part of one China. That is why it cannot persuade people on Taiwan to accept "one China."

Cross-Strait relations and Scotland-UK relations do have one thing in common. Whether they hold a referendum or not, the fundamental problem lies within peoples' hearts. Can the United Kingdom reassure the Scots that if they remain within the United Kingdom, they can maintain their honor and self-esteem? If it can, the people will arrive at their own decision about reunification vs. independence. By contrast, Beijing has long regarded Taiwan as a renegade province. Over the past 65 years, the Republic of China has created a civilization on Taiwan. Yet Beijing refuses to grant it political recognition. It refuses to recognize the Republic of China as a part of China. Yet it demands that the public on Taiwan recognize "one China." Under the circumstances, how can it expect the public on Taiwan to feel pride and self-esteem as part of "one China?"

The Scottish independence referendum made people realize that Scotland was part of the United Kingdom. If the two sides of the Taiwan Strait wish to resolve the issue of reunification vs. independence, they must first allow the ROC to perceive itself as part of China, under a "big roof concept of China." This is a matter of hearts and minds, This is fundamental problem that transcends the issue of reunification vs. independence referenda.

Thursday, September 18, 2014

Summary: The possibility of outside interference with the development of
cross-Strait peace has gradually diminished, Risks to the big picture
remain. But a Ma Xi Meeting is now up to Beijing. Can the Chinese
mainland maintain firmness in principle, without forgetting the need for
flexibility, creative thinking, and groundbreaking approaches? It must
seize an historic opportunity to ensure cross-Strait peace and
rejuvenate the Chinese nation. It must not quibble over short-term
political gains and losses. Can Ma and Xi use the APEC meeting to
meet? It all depends on Mr. Xi. The window of opportunity may be small.
But we remain cautiously optimistic.

Full Text Below:

The Mainland recently sent emissaries to Taiwan to deliver invitations to this year's Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Leaders' Meeting. Where the two sides will meet and who the participants will be have all been carefully planned in advance. The Mainland side will be represented by Taiwan Affairs Office Deputy Director Gong Qinggai. Our side chose the Taipei Guest House. MAC and Foreign Ministry heads will be in attendance. This shows by implication that the relationship between the two sides is neither a state to state relationship, nor a purely internal matter. It is consistent with dignity and equality, and highlights the special relationship between the two sides. It is obviously a compromise, but one acceptable to both sides. It is completely different from the 2001 Shanghai APEC Leaders' Meeting, when an invitation was sent via fax machine. The two sides now understand each other. Their flexibility in dealing with the matter deserves affirmation. We believe it will help the two sides deal with matters pertaining to foreign affairs and mutual trust.

The Taiwan side later engaged in careful internal evaluation and consideration. Since the Chinese Communist Party did not reject outright President Ma attending the Economic Leaders Meeting as an economic leader, there may still be hope for a Ma Xi meeting at APEC in Beijing this year. People from all quarters are making an effort. They are making a last ditch attempt to ensure that it takes place. They include experts regarded as emissaries for the government, the pro-blue media, and even scholars who have never dabbled cross-Strait relations. For several days, a large number of articles were published. They urged the Beijing authorities to adopt a more elevated and strategic perspective, to seize a rare and historic opportunity to advance the two sides' common interests. President Ma Ying-jeou should agree to the meeting and meet with Xi Jinping. Beijing has deliberately released this information to Taipei. It clearly has a clear understanding of what it means.

From the past to the present, the Mainland's response to Ma Ying-jeou attending the APEC Leaders' Conference has been consistent. It will abide by APEC precedents. Beijing does not oppose a Ma Xi Meeting. It merely wishes to stipulate certain conditions. It has pointed out that if the two sides meet in a third country, that should not be construed as an international arena. It has also made clear its bottom line concerns. Our side knows that different people on the Mainland hold different ideas about a Ma Xi Meeting. Some value the historical role of a leaders meeting. They advocate throwing the doors wide open, and making an historic breakthrough. Others advocate gradualism. They think steadiness is preferable to impatience. They think haste could make waste. Still others think this is all a political game. Therefore Taiwan must be pressured to make concrete concessions. Others have suggested that the United States is not happy to see a significant and rapid improvement in cross-Strait relations, and may attempt to undermine it. In short, there is no consensus.

A Ma Xi Meeting is of course no trivial matter. Observers generally consider it more symbolic than real in significance. But the symbolic significance itself would have a significant impact. Since the meaning is largely symbolic, the possibility of success is greater. As long as both sides have a tacit understanding, as long as two people can meet, that will be a great achievement. How they meet and when they meet can be further discussed. Peace has become a common value for compatriots and authorities on both sides. An end to hostilities has become a reality. All that remains is to make the correct legal representations and reasonable and proper arrangements. We should do the easy before the difficult, and the simple before the complex. First publish the KMT Peace Declaration, then gradually proceed from there. Who can object to political dialogue and political consultation, paving the way for political negotiations?

Some may have doubts about the preceding claims. Is peace a process or a goal? People may have different views. Some think that peace is a means, and reunification is the ultimate goal. If peaceful national reunification cannot be achieved, Beijing will change its methods. But others believe that peace is a goal in itself, and a kind of value, one we must work hard to maintain. To be fair, peace is both a goal and a method. As we can see, the concept of national sovereignty is becoming diluted. One example is the independence referendum for Scotland. Authorities on both sides have much to reflect upon. The international community is of course interested in a Ma Xi Meeting. But the United States has made clear that whether Ma and Xi meet is a matter between the two sides. The American position remains to encourage dialogue and reduce tensions, step by step. America cares only about whether it understands what is going on, and is not kept in the dark. Apparently the U.S. will not interfere with or oppose any Ma Xi Meeting.

The possibility of outside interference with the development of cross-Strait peace has gradually diminished, Risks to the big picture remain. But a Ma Xi Meeting is now up to Beijing. Can the Chinese mainland maintain firmness in principle, without forgetting the need for flexibility, creative thinking, and groundbreaking approaches? It must seize an historic opportunity to ensure cross-Strait peace and rejuvenate the Chinese nation. It must not quibble over short-term political gains and losses.

Can Ma and Xi use the APEC meeting to meet? It all depends on Mr. Xi. The window of opportunity may be small. But we remain cautiously optimistic. And for that we offer the above commentary.

Wednesday, September 17, 2014

Summary: Tsai Ing-wen is angry. The DPP has made no effort to divest itself of
its anti-business image. She hopes to reverse the
DPP's "anti-business" image in order to prepare for a return to power in
2016. But whether the subject is cross-Strait mutual trust or fiscal policy,
Tsai Ing-wen is far from a "quasi-ruling party leader." How can voters
possibly trust a changeable "quasi-ruling party" only capable of
building castles in the air? They would just as soon not.

Full Text Below:

Tsai Ing-wen is angry. The DPP has made no effort to divest itself of its anti-business image. The DPP recently convened the first meeting of the new Legislative Yuan session. It issued a "Report on the Coordination of Major Issues." Tsai Ing-wen issued a sternly worded military directive. She ordered the DPP legislative caucus to establish a "10 person team to consider fiscally oriented legislative issues." She wanted to accelerate the introduction of fiscal legislation that would "enrich the nation and benefit the people." She hopes to reverse the DPP's "anti-business" image in order to prepare for a return to power in 2016.

The "Report on the Coordination of Major Issues" is an important meeting that the DPP holds once every week. Think tank staff, caucus cadres, and concerned Central Committee heads attend. The list of participants is expanded when necessary. County and municipal party leaders are invited to participate. During the conference Tsai Ing-wen declared that since we have taken the time to meet, "This should not be merely a pro forma ritual."

The "Wrath of Tsai Ing-wen" underscored DPP neglect of fiscal issues. It shocked people out of their complacency. The conference report was supposed to address high priority legislation and offensive and defensive arrangements in the new session of the Legislative Yuan. But Tsai Ing-wen arrived on scene, only to find that DPP high priority legislation did not include any major fiscal legislation, This was of course no oversight. It merely confirmed that DPP party caucus struggles habitually ignore fiscal legislation that would "enrich the nation and benefit the people."

The "Wrath of Tsai Ing-wen" sent an important message. The DPP still intends to subject the FEPZ proposal to "rigorous review." It still intends to "propose an amended version" and give it conditional support. It merely stressed the need to develop economic strategies or strategic industries. As everyone knows, many other citizens' groups before and after the Sunflower Student Movement are preparing to obstruct passage of the FEPZ. Tsai Ing-wen is leading the DPP. In order to reverse its anti-business image, she will not be waging a scorched earth campaign against the FEPZ. How will the DPP relate to these civic groups? How will the relationship affect these new political groups? Will it lead to the emergence of a new political party? These questions merit close attention.

According to media reports, Tsai Ing-wen said the DPP must present a different image to the outside world. It must not be seen merely as a civic group concerned about the underprivileged. It must be seen as a "quasi-ruling party." But given its performance, the DPP does not qualify as a "quasi-ruling party." It does not even qualify as a competent "opposition party." Take the FEPZ for example. The KMT announced the details of the bill early this year. Yet the DPP dragged its feet until August before proposing an alternative. Its alternative is "Oppose everything having anything to do with [Mainland] China." As the product of a conservative and protectionist mentality, how can it possibly win public support?

Actually, Tsai Ying-wen herself is one of the sources of the DPP's problems. Late last month, the DPP held its first "Citizen's Economic Conference." Tsai Ing-wen blasted the government. She said "Taiwan's economic vitality and industrial competitiveness are increasingly on the wane." She said "government policies are out of touch with economic reality." She said "Taiwan's economic growth model and economic decision-making model cannot keep up with the times." That is why the DPP must address several major issues, including its "choice of core values and economic development goals," its "choice of economic growth mode," and the "balanced development of globalization and cross-strait relations." Alas, after holding forth all day, Tsai Ing-wen failed to say just how the DPP would implement a new economic growth model, one that was "innovation-oriented, export and domestic demand-oriented, that links employment, wages, wage equity, and the public welfare." Even the pro-green media criticized Tsai Ing-wen, saying that she was merely building castles in the air, and lacked any real policy prescriptions. Today, after the "Wrath of Tsai Ing-wen," the responsibility to consider policy appears to have fallen onto the DPP's collective shoulders. We truly doubt that a "water spinach" party chairman and a gaggle of legislators contemptuous of fiscal issues, can ever offer up a "new model of economic development."

Tsai Ing-wen also revealed shocking ignorance about issues other than economics. Recently the right-wing, pro-Japanese World United Formosans for Independence (WUFI) convened a seminar entitled "U.S. Return to Asia and Asia-Pacific Regional Security." Tsai Ing-wen was invited to speak. The media focused her proposal that Taiwan establish a new mode of interaction with the Chinese mainland. In fact, Tsai Ing-wen did not say anything she hadn't said many times before. She presented nothing new. The Mainland publicly criticized her assertion that "Once the DPP returns to power, the Mainland will automatically adjust its policies." She failed to offer any concrete suggestions as to how Taiwan could interact with the Chinese mainland in a new way. She still could not shake off the "water spinach" (hollow stalks with nothing at the center) label.

Another issue was even more controversial. In order to underscore the DPP's advocacy of "democracy, freedom, justice, and connecting with the world," and highlight Taiwan's geo-strategic position, Tsai Ing-wen quoted Douglas MacArthur's Cold War era remark about "unsinkable aircraft carriers." As we all know, the "unsinkable aircraft carrier" remark was a product of the Cold War. The United States and Japan see Taiwan as the first island chain by which they can "contain" Mainland China. The so-called "first island chain" is part of a US-Japan effort to prevent the Mainland from accessing blue water and adopting a blue water naval strategy.

Tsai Ing-wen lauded the Japanese government's collective self-defense as "positive." She sang an old Cold War tune, and attempted to bind Taiwan to the US-Japan security system. Politically speaking, this was bothwrong and dangerous. If this is how Tsai Ing-wen thinks, how can she possibly establish mutual trust with the Mainland? How can she possibly "seek to establish a new mode of interaction and communication with the other side, in order to ensure a peaceful and stable cross-Strait relationship?"

Whether the subject is cross-Strait mutual trust or fiscal policy, Tsai Ing-wen is far from a "quasi-ruling party leader." How can voters possibly trust a changeable "quasi-ruling party" only capable of building castles in the air? They would just as soon not.

Summary: The 12 year compulsory education program is our nation's established
educational policy. If we agree that extending compulsory education will
improve the quality of our citizens, then we should not spin our wheels
on admissions policy. We should concentrate on the person to be
educated. Warren Buffett said that the difference between himself and
others is that after he gets out of bed each morning, he has a chance to
do what he wants to do. Call it diversity. Call it special
characteristics. Call it any name you want. The most important thing 12
year compulsory education can do is give children the space to do what
they need to do. Let them discover their own talents, and learn to be
happy.

Full Text Below:

The Taipei City Government has abolished the Academic Ability Test for Admission to Senior High School. To avoid controversy, some elite schools have also ceased using the Academic Ability Test. The controversy over 12 year compulsory education has finally been settled. But many people, including Minister of Education Wu Se-hwa, insist that the Academic Ability Test should be retained. After all, diversity in admissions is a core value of 12 year compulsory education. Wu Se-hwa has even encouraged second tier schools to offer the Academic Ability Test in order to compete with first tier schools. Some parent organizations believe that the Ministry of Education exerted political pressure to force schools to abolish the Academic Ability Test, and to eliminate elite education for the sake of ersatz egalitarianism. The rush to adopt 12 year compulsory education has indeed led to endless aftereffects. Now that the political controversy over student recruitment has finally been settled, we need to look back and ask ourselves what was the purpose of 12 year compulsory education?

The purpose of 12 year compulsory education was to improve the quality of our citizenry. The 12 year compulsory education program stressed admissions without entrance exams. The intent was to reduce academic pressure on students and allow senior high schools to become standardized community senior high schools. Students would simply attend the nearest school. Children would be spared academic pressures and commute long distances. Diversity in admissions would encourage senior high schools to offer specialized curricula. The Academic Ability Test was a student recruitment method that would introduce specialized curricula to senior high schools. The goal was to create an environment in which students could fulfill their expectations. So many well-intentioned goals were hitched to the wagon of an admissions test, that its original nature became blurred by controversy.

This year, for the first time, senior high schools will not require entrance examinations. This has led to considerable controversy. Just how many senior high schools that do not require entrance exams must a student apply to before being admitted? Allowing schools to recruit students has already led to confusion and complaints by schools, parents, and students. The brutal reality is that academic pressure on students has not been relieved. Instead new pressures have been created. According to 1111 Job Bank statistics, online tutoring numbers show that between January and August, 10,000 more students applied. This represents a 45% surge over the same period in 2013. It also established a record high since the tutoring network was established. The 12 year compulsory education enrollment program is too complicated. Parents and students are at sea. They must seek help on their own. They can seek help from tailor made tutoring programs. Under the circumstances how can students possibly reduce academic pressure on themselves? Before they had to bone up on English, math, physics, and chemistry. Now they must learn Japanese, take violin lessons, and volunteer for community service. Diversity in admissions and Academic Ability Tests have become distorted. They have become alternative sources of income for cram schools or home tutors.

The Academic Ability Test was supposed to give students with different strengths the opportunity to receive specialized training. Instead, its implementation has merely provided elite schools with a pipeline by which to recruit students more adept at taking tests. It has merely muddied the waters. It has left the Comprehensive Assessment Program for Junior High School Students in a state of uncertainty, and students and parents in a state of anxiety.

The Academic Ability Test has morphed into a back door for elite senior high schools. It has already violated the spirit of diversity. It has even less to do with education tailored to the student's potential. It merely perpetuates academic test scores as an admissions threshold. It merely engages in pretense. Schools have blind faith in test scores. Parents continue to have blind faith in the values held by elite schools. It will probably be a long time before students on Taiwan can receive an education tailored to the student's potential.

Everyone is suggesting cures for the problems caused by 12 year compulsory education. The cures suggested include more "specialized curricula" once the Academic Ability Tests are abolished and insufficient diversity becomes a problem. The school districts for Taipei and Keelung will be reduced in size. A student will first obtain Comprehensive Assessment Program test scores, then arrange for Academic Ability Tests. The 12 year compulsory education program has just been launched. Yet patchwork repairs are already required. One can safely predict that the situation will soon be even more fragmented and confusing. Worse still, the suggested cures are mere technicalities. The 12 year compulsory education program has become a big brawl over school admissions. How can this possibly be the object and purpose of education?

If we really want diversity, if we really want education tailored to the student's potential, we must begin by respecting individual differences and traits. In the book "Now, Discover Your Strengths," Donald Clifton, the "the Father of Strengths Psychology," proposed that education should transform talent into ability and enable people to feel a sense of accomplishment. Our society does not need perfect people with perfect test scores. If a person can find and use his innate talent, he can make a meaningful contribution to himself and to society. The book "Talk Like TED:The 9 Public-Speaking Secrets of the World’s Top Minds," mentions a touching example -- the story of "Phantom of the Opera" choreographer Dame Gillian Barbara Lynne. When Lynne was young, her mother discovered that she liked to move around and couldn't concentrate. So she took her to see a doctor. The doctor discovered that Lynne loved dancing. She told the mother to send Lynne to dance school to learn dance. As a result, Lynne became a superstar in the dance world. Just imagine what would have happened if Lynne's mother had insisted that Lynne quiet down, read books, and study for exams?

The 12 year compulsory education program is our nation's established educational policy. If we agree that extending compulsory education will improve the quality of our citizens, then we should not spin our wheels on admissions policy. We should concentrate on the person to be educated. Warren Buffett said that the difference between himself and others is that after he gets out of bed each morning, he has a chance to do what he wants to do. Call it diversity. Call it special characteristics. Call it any name you want. The most important thing 12 year compulsory education can do is give children the space to do what they need to do. Let them discover their own talents, and learn to be happy.

About Me

Bevin Chu is a free market anarchist currently living in Taipei, China. His newest blog, An Enemy of the State, is his flagship blog. Articles from his previous flagship blog, The China Desk, have appeared at the wildly popular libertarian website LewRockwell.com, where Chu is a columnist/commentator; at Antiwar.com, the best known anti-war website on the Internet; and at the China Post, where he was a contributing editor. They have even appeared in Pravda -- the post Cold War, post Communist Pravda, of course.